I was surprised he got a prison sentence at all, you know, with him being famous and all that! But as a prolific paedophile its quite right he should serve a damn sight longer than half of a 15 month sentence. What was the Judge thinking?

At the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Lord Judge said Hall "got away with it" for decades and had "lived a lie for more than half of his life".

Attorney General Dominic Grieve had earlier told the packed courtroom: "The total sentence of 15 months' imprisonment ... failed adequately to reflect the gravity of the totality of the offences, and the public concern about offences of this nature.

"Some of the sentences should have been made to run consecutively, so that the total sentence passed reflected the culpability of the offender, the harm caused and to deter others."

After the verdict, Mr Grieve said: "I asked the court to consider the multiple offending by Stuart Hall over a prolonged period of time which involved numerous victims.

"I also asked that the court take into account the breaches of trust in this case - Hall carried out some of these offences in places where the victims were entitled to feel safe, he used his celebrity status to invite them to attend the BBC, and he also displayed an element of planning and premeditation".

Hall, 83, who appeared in court via video link, was convicted of sexually assaulting several girls the youngest of whom was nine. The former It's A Knockout presenter was sentenced to 15-months in June.

Hall's QC Crispin Aylett had argued there was "nothing wrong" with the sentence imposed. He told the court: "If the object was to see this man punished, disgraced and financially ruined then all of that has been more than achieved."

The former broadcaster, from Wilmslow, Cheshire, admitted 14 counts of indecent assault between 1967 and 1987.

Hall directly exploited his role as a popular BBC presenter to target four of his victims, while he assaulted another four on the pretence of giving elocution lessons to them at his home.

Before entering his guilty plea in April, he had made a public pronouncement on the steps of a court, describing all the claims against him as "cruel, pernicious and spurious".

Hall was arrested and subsequently charged on December 5 last year with indecently assaulting three young girls.

More women came forward as a result of publicity and he was rearrested before he later admitted sexual offences relating to 13 victims.

Judge Russell told Hall: "Several of these cases reveal an abuse of the trust placed in you by the parents of these children but all of them reveal an abuse of power by you because your status gave you an influence and standing which you abused."

The judge said Hall would have received 20 months after a trial but he reduced the sentence to reflect his guilty pleas.

At Hall's original sentencing, Mr Aylett said that 27 years had passed since the last offence and the presenter had led an "unblemished" life over those years.

The length of the jail term was immediately criticised as "unduly lenient" by shadow attorney general Emily Thornberry.

Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour party, also added to calls for the sentence to be referred.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)

There was a barrister on Breakfast this morning who was explaining the sentencing. He said that the 15 months originally handed down was the applicable sentence for the offences at the time they were committed, ie over 30 years ago. If the same offences were committed now then the sentences would have been a lot longer. I can't understand where the 150/160 complaints have come from. I don't think for one minute they are from the girls involved or their relatives so must be from members of the public who have no vested interest in the case. Please don't think that I am condoning what Hall did, I am not because he abused his position of trust. However I would like to know why all the claims which are now climbing out of the woodwork took so long and would they have still complained if the Jimmy Saville case hadn't blown up?

Keela wrote:There was a barrister on Breakfast this morning who was explaining the sentencing. He said that the 15 months originally handed down was the applicable sentence for the offences at the time they were committed, ie over 30 years ago. If the same offences were committed now then the sentences would have been a lot longer. I can't understand where the 150/160 complaints have come from. I don't think for one minute they are from the girls involved or their relatives so must be from members of the public who have no vested interest in the case. Please don't think that I am condoning what Hall did, I am not because he abused his position of trust. However I would like to know why all the claims which are now climbing out of the woodwork took so long and would they have still complained if the Jimmy Saville case hadn't blown up?

And it was also stated that EACH assault at the time Hall committed them was subject to TWO years imprisonment per charge.So the 14 'charges' he has admitted to should have equated to 28 YEARS imprisonmemt!

ETAWhat a nonce this bloke is!Hall's QC Crispin Aylett had argued there was "nothing wrong" with the sentence imposed. He told the court: "If the object was to see this man punished, disgraced and financially ruined then all of that has been more than achieved."

RUINED?Who's he trying to kid?When Hall was on bail he transferred the deeds to his £1.5 MILLION house to his wife!Where does Hall's QC think he's going to live when he gets out?'poor' ruined stuey living in the gutter?er nope, he'll have his feet up in his wifes £1.5 millon house!Well if that's being 'ruined' then i'll have some of that!

Last edited by jeanmonroe on Fri 26 Jul - 15:25; edited 3 times in total

Keela wrote:There was a barrister on Breakfast this morning who was explaining the sentencing. He said that the 15 months originally handed down was the applicable sentence for the offences at the time they were committed, ie over 30 years ago. If the same offences were committed now then the sentences would have been a lot longer. I can't understand where the 150/160 complaints have come from. I don't think for one minute they are from the girls involved or their relatives so must be from members of the public who have no vested interest in the case. Please don't think that I am condoning what Hall did, I am not because he abused his position of trust. However I would like to know why all the claims which are now climbing out of the woodwork took so long and would they have still complained if the Jimmy Saville case hadn't blown up?

And it was also stated that EACH assault at the time Hall committed them was subject to TWO years imprisonment per charge.So the 13 'charges' he has admitted to should have equated to 26 YEARS imprisonmemt!

I think he should have been sentenced for each abuse to run consecutively.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)

I think cases are coming to light now becaujse people know they will be believed, they stories appear credible and have a familiar ring to those that have made compaints. I think its a feeling theyre not on their own any more and that his fame is not protecting him now as it probably did then. same with JS. I think they are all incredibly brave, ruined lives, psychological effects which I will never understand, (nor do I want to sorry) as well as him branding them liars. B******. he should get longer. he denounced all those girls, women, and made awful statements about them. I don't care what the sentencing was when the acts occurred, he didn't give a damn either, so he should serve a lot longer now. so hes old and unwell, im sure he didn't give a fig about his victims. rant over.

I do not understand this Law of sentencing, at the time the offence was committed.

QUOTE: He said that the 15 months originally handed down was the applicable sentence for the offences at the time they were committed, ie over 30 years ago. If the same offences were committed now then the sentences would have been a lot longer.

Does this mean for e.g. That if someone committed murder before the Hanging days were abolished and they have just been found guilty today, that they could hand out a hanging sentence.